The Time Tim Cook Stood His Ground Against the FBI

https://www.wired.com/story/the-time-tim-cook-stood-his-ground-against-fbi/

by Elof • 7 years ago

82 21 7 years ago

The writ “was not a simple request for assistance in a criminal case,” explained Sewell. “It was a forty-two-page pleading by the government that started out with this litany of the horrible things that had been done in San Bernardino. And then this... somewhat biased litany of all the times that Apple had said no to what were portrayed as very reasonable requests. So this was what, in the law, we call a speaking complaint. It was meant to from day one tell a story... that would get the public against Apple.”
The team came to the conclusion that the judge’s order was a PR move—a very public arm twisting to pressure Apple into complying with the FBI’s demands—and that it could be serious trouble for the company. Apple “is a famous, incredibly powerful consumer brand and we are going to be standing up against the FBI and saying in effect, ‘No, we’re not going to give you the thing that you’re looking for to try to deal with this terrorist threat,’” said Sewell.

lern_too_spel8• 7 years ago

On the contrary, Apple's refusal was a PR move, and this whole article is a submarine. https://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicat... has a better explanation.

What really happened is that Apple loudly proclaimed that they had made it impossible to comply with government data requests and even had a marketing page masquerading as a privacy page explaining that. The FBI asked Apple to put a build on a phone that would allow them to brute force the passcode, leaving the device and the build on Apple's premises the entire time. This showed that Apple's claim was false in practice. Apple quickly removed that marketing page in the wake of the news.

lucasmullens• 7 years ago

How does the FBI asking Apple something make Apple's claim false?

urda• 7 years ago

The FBI asked Apple to put a build on a phone that would allow them to brute force the passcode, leaving the device and the build on Apple's premises the entire time.

It doesn't matter how well it might be locked down or secured. If the government coerced them into building it, it wouldn't be difficult to go one more step and require apple to hand over the modified OS.

This [1] does a great job of explaining why building a master key is just a bad idea. This is a pandora's box we do not need to open.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo

eps2• 7 years ago

While we are on the subject, shall we go over Apple caving in to Prism participation shortly after Jobs death?

Have Tim Cook pulled them out by any chance? Or are they still siphoning off pretty much everything feds want that way despite all their very hard and very public stance against the FBI? It might be not acceptable in court per se, but it does put their "pro-privacy stance" in perspective.

lern_too_spel8• 7 years ago

Apple didn't "participate in PRISM." The only participants in PRISM are the FBI, the NSA, and government contractors that implemented the PRISM system, as the slides clearly show: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-...

eps2• 7 years ago

PotatA-potatO. They are knowingly leaking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)...

(includes your slide in a proper context)

MrBingley• 7 years ago

From a public relations standpoint, Apple had always been on the side of privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

Oh give me a break. Apple only cares about American user privacy, and only then because it aligns with their business interests. Where is the oh-so-noble Tim Cook protesting the heinous civil rights and privacy violations in the business they do in China? Nowhere. Apple only cares about user privacy so much as it makes them money - in the US that means resisting the government, and in China it means hopping into bed with Big Daddy Xi.

Edit: For example, Snowden leaked an NSA slide saying that Apple had given in to cooperate with Prism, but Apple denied-denied-denied as soon as the news broke. It was only post-Snowden, when privacy could be monetized, that Apple suddenly started to care.

lern_too_spel8• 7 years ago

You're downvoted because (ignoring for now the Apple fanboys who can't abide any criticism of Apple) your edit is wrong as explained elsewhere in these comments. Your initial China point is spot on.

atomical• 7 years ago

Why doesn't he stand up to the Saudis? It's quite strange. I know people will say it's about money, but that's a really unsatisfying answer.

The Time Tim Cook Stood His Ground Against the FBI

Related Stories